General Pawnwallis's Q & A session

In this topic you may ask me, General Pawnwallis, anything.  Go ahead, ask away. I won't clog this topic with my own rants, but will only respond to questions asked.  Try to keep some semblance of decency and intelligence when asking your questions. A stupid question will ALWAYS get you a 3-times-as-stupid answer.

Aaaw! Spoilsport!

 I don't see why it would.  For instance, in quantum mechanics causality doesn't even really apply.  Processes are time invariant.

 I've never heard of him in my life.

 I agree that it doesn't.  It merely means that the notion of a causal link (which itself proposes the dependency of a so-called substantive entity upon its similarly independent cause) is absurd. It follows that if an entity is seen as having an independent existence, that it is not dependent upon any cause in order to exist. This is an obvious paradox. All we need do is shift to the view that entities are not substantial, but are arbitrary (or rather perception-based) designations which have no independent/inherent existence. Instead of causes, it should be seen that there are only conditions, which are no more than observed regularities, and no metaphysical link between seemingly independent entities. A tree is not caused by planting a seed, it is (based upon repeated observation) dependent upon several conditions such as water, light, soil, etc.

For those who are interested, I found a great article about this way of understanding "causality" which draws a parallel between one of the early origins of this type of philosophy, Buddhism, and quantum physics: http://ctkohl.googlepages.com/